Kilka uwag na temat tzw. portalu ołbińskiego z kościoła św. Marii Magdaleny we Wrocławiu

Franciszek Hackemer

doi:10.37190/arc220101

Streszczenie

Artykuł stanowi opis kluczowych problemów badawczych dotyczących tzw. portalu ołbińskiego z kościoła pw. św. Marii Magdaleny we Wrocławiu, pierwotnie pochodzącego z opactwa na Ołbinie. Portal jest bez wątpienia jednym z najważniejszych dzieł romańskiej rzeźby architektonicznej w tej części Europy. Jego pierwotna forma pozostaje jednak nieznana – obecna stanowi wynik XVI-wiecznego zabiegu osadzenia portalu w nowym miejscu, po kasacie i zburzeniu opactwa. Do celów inwentaryzacyjnych autor stworzył fotogrametryczny model 3D portalu, stanowiący również podstawę późniejszych rozważań. Praca zawiera przeprowadzoną przez autora analizę ikonografii oraz obecnego stanu portalu, wraz z płynącymi z nich wnioskami dotyczącymi datowania jego poszczególnych elementów. Na tej podstawie powstała ilustracja całościowego rozwarstwienia kolejnych faz budowlanych portalu. Podjęta została również próba lepszego zrozumienia programu ikonograficznego dzieła oraz zwrócenia uwagi na niepomijalne problemy interpretacyjne, wynikające przede wszystkim ze zniszczeń, jakich portal doznał w wyniku dostosowywania go do wmurowania w ścianę kościoła Marii Magdaleny w 1546 r. Praca zwraca uwagę na wiele nierozwiązanych do tej pory problemów badawczych, takich jak identyfikacja postaci rzeźbionych w węgarach czy pierwotna forma kapiteli zewnętrznych kolumn, oraz na pewne przyjęte w dotychczasowej literaturze przedmiotu przeoczenia dotyczące głównie efektów XIX-wiecznych zabiegów konserwatorskich.

Podgląd pełnego artykułu jest możliwy wyłącznie na większych ekranach.

2022

1(69)

Franciszek Hackemer*

Some concerns about the Ołbin’s Portal

from St. Mary Magdalene Church in Wrocław

Introduction

The history and original form of the portal, now em-

bedded in the wall of the southern nave of the Church of

St. Mary Magdalene in Wrocław, still remains an unex-

plained research problem. Initially, the artwork was locat-

ed in the Benedictine abbey founded before 1139 in Ołbin,

an area outside the foundation city. After the demolition

of the monastery in 1546, the portal was moved to the

Church of St. Mary Magdalene, which is located near the

market square in Wrocław (Fig. 1A). Regardless of the

motivation behind preserving the portal – by Wiesław

Koziński perceived as “bourgeois stinginess” [1], and by

Zygmunt Świechowski as “full of appreciation and admi-

ration evaluation (of the portal)” [2] – there is no doubt

that thanks to this decision of the 16

century patricians

Wrocław preserved one of the most magnicent works of

Romanesque architectural sculpture.

The research done into the portal so far has provided

more questions than answers, and the conservation work

to which the portal has been exposed since the end of the

century has probably eliminated many opportunities

for a better understanding of it. The presented work was

the rst stage in the architectural research on the portal and

its aim was to determine the issues related to the portal’s

transformations occurring in the mid-16

century and at

the turn of the 19

and 20

centuries. It was also intend-

ed to draw attention to some inaccuracies that have been

established or overlooked by researchers in the literature

on the subject. The basis of the study was an inventory of

the church and the portal made by the author in the years

2021–2022 by means of digital photogrammetry (il. 1B),

and an analysis of iconographic sources and the current

state of research.

History of the portal

At the beginning, the portal was probably part of the

church of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Vincent in the

Abbey on the Ołbin. The monastic foundation is now un-

questionably dated to the years before 1139, as indi cated

by the granting of the church of St. Michael to the rst

abbot – Radulf – by Bishop Robert of Wrocław. There is

no doubt about the person of the founder of the monastery,

who was undoubtedly Piotr Włostowic [4]. Signicant in

the context of dating the portal itself is the year 1145, when

the relics of St. Vincent, its later patron, obtained by Peter

Włostowic a year earlier from Conrad III in Magdeburg,

were introduced into the church [5]. A turning point in

the history of the abbey is the last decade of the 12

cen-

tury. In 1193, in a bull issued by Pope Celestine III, the

Benedictines of Ołbin were accused of mismanagement,

which in eect led to their removal. In 1197, in their

place, Bolesław I the Tall brought the Pre mon

stratensians

from the area of the Reich [6]. Some researchers (espe-

cially German ones) have taken this date as a terminus

post quem of the creation of the portal, linking its rich

decorations with the artistic culture of German monks [7].

The abbey in Ołbin functioned until 1529, when it was de-

molished by the decision of the city council, allegedly out

of concern for safety in the face of the Turkish invasion.

The reason was the potential threat posed by the spacious

monastery buildings, which could be seized and used as

an enemy base during a siege of the city. As is known, the

Turks never reached Wrocław. It is worth noting, howev-

er, that the threat of invasion was probably only a pretext

allowing the Protestant city council to curb the activities

of the Catholic monastery [8]. The portal was dismantled

* ORCID: 0000-0003-1966-4926. Faculty of Architecture, Wrocław

University of Science and Technology, Poland, e-mail: franciszek.hacke-

mer@pwr.edu.pl

DOI: 10.37190/arc220101

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

4 Franciszek Hackemer

during the demolition of the abbey. In 1546, it was em-

bedded into the southern wall of the Church of St. Mary

Magdalene, which changed its overall composition and

shape [9].

After these events there was a long period of stillness,

but also a slow decay of the portal, caused mainly by the

weather conditions. It was only in the years 1888–1890,

in the face of the terrible state of preservation of the

monument, that many treatments were conducted on it

to improve its condition and slow down its deterioration.

Further conservation eorts were carried out in 1912 and

1934 [8] with the aim of preventing further destruction

and securing the damaged parts of the portal’s stonework.

The portal did not suer any damage during World War II,

although the church was heavily damaged. Especially the

western part of the church was destroyed, in particular the

south tower. The portal was protected during the war by

a shatterproof wall.

In the 1960s, attempts were made to clean the monu-

ment from the layers of substances used for conservation

in 1912 and 1934 [10], [11]. There were even conceptual

designs – by Halina Dziurla – of structures intended to

cover the portal. Finally, in the years 1967–1968 works

were performed to clean the monument from harmful lay-

ers and to signicantly slow down its destruction. Since

those works the portal has not changed much.

State of research

Hermann Luchs, in his 1855 work, dedicated a chap-

ter to the abbey churches (only two – St. Michael and St.

Vincent). Importantly, this work also included a detailed

description of the portal before the conservation treat-

ments and a drawing inventory. Luchs was also the rst

researcher to link the tympanum built into the wall of

the so-called Old House

with the portal [9]. At the very

beginning of the 20

century, a chapter on the relics of

the monastery (and very much on its iconography) was

included in Schlesiens Vorzeit in Bild und Schrift by Con-

rad Buchwald, agreeing with Luchs on the tympanum and

giving its exact dimensions, in line with those of the in-

ner belt of the archivolt [12]. The researcher also provid-

ed an interpretation of the tympanum relief scenes. Two

years later Max Semrau wrote about the portal, especially

about the tympanum and its iconographic agenda, in fact

strongly criticizing Buchwald [7]. A very brief descrip-

tion of the portal could be found in a work by Heinrich

Götz and Alfred Hadelt published in 1926. However, what

is important, this study contained an extremely valuable

photograph of the monument before the conservation ac-

tivities in 1888 [13]. A photograph taken shortly after the

end of the 19

century conservation work was included

in a study by Cornelius Gurlitt [14]. In a work by Rudolf

Stein, published a year earlier, there was a graphic work

by Heinrich Mützel depicting the portal and probably dat-

ing from 1822–1828 [15].

After World War II research became more vigorous and

the subject of the Abbey of Ołbin and the portal itself was

dealt with by numerous researchers, creating an extensive

It was previously located in the wall of All Saints Hospital.

Fig. 1. Wrocław. Relocation of the portal from Ołbin.

A – schematic plan of Wrocław from the 14

century (redrawn after: [3, p. 28]), 1 – Benedictine abbey, 2 – St. Mary Magdalene church.

B – view of St. Mary Magdalene church from south-western side, 3D model of the church made with the use of digital photogrammetry

(elaborated by F. Hackemer)

Il. 1. Wrocław. Translokacja portalu ołbińskiego.

A – schemat liniowy planu Wrocławia z XIV w. (przerys za: [3, s. 28]), 1 – opactwo benedyktynów, 2 – kościół św. Marii Magdaleny.

B – widok kościoła św. Marii Magdaleny od strony południowo-zachodniej, model 3D kościoła wykonany metodą fotogrametrii cyfrowej

(oprac. F. Hackemer)

a b

SomeconcernsabouttheOłbin’sPortalfromSt.MaryMagdaleneChurchinWrocław 5

[19]. Also important for the topic is the extensive study by

Aldona Fąfara, which is a detailed record of the state of

research on the portal [20].

Pre-war German researchers, when determining the

date of origin of the portal, opted for the early years of

the 13

century [7], assuming that the portal was creat-

ed under the inspiration of German Premonstratensians.

However, this opinion disappeared in the post-war litera-

ture. Świechowski dated the portal to the years after 1178,

Morelowski indicated the time to the 3

quarter of the

century inclusive, attributing it to the Benedictines.

Świechowski’s conception was based on the striking

similarity between the representation of the scene of the

deposition from the cross on the Ołbin tympanum (sepa-

rated from the rest of the portal since 1529) and the frieze

of the cathedral in Parma by Antelami. This thesis is

strongly related to Świechowski’s general view of the sty-

listic genesis of the work in discussion, but was criticized

rst by Morelowski and then by Quirini-Popławski and

Chorowska. The researchers pointed out that the inuence

of Antelami’s work was evident between the late 12

and

the 2

quarter of the 13

century, but in Emilia, whose

contacts with Silesia at that time were probably not strong,

if they existed at all [18], while the similarity is due to the

reliance on the same iconographic model. Chorowska cited

many examples of earlier and later representations of the

deposition revealing a very strong resemblance to the

Ołbin tympanum [19].

Morelowski based his attempt to estimate the date of the

portal origin on an analysis of similar works of architectu -

ral sculpture from the area on the Meuse, where he saw its

stylistic genesis (as suggested earlier by M. Gę ba ro wicz [21]).

On this basis, he determined the moment of its creation to

be no later than the 3

quarter of the 12

cen tury [16].

One of the latest chronological dating, and at the same

time one of the earlier ones, can be found in Chorowska’s

work, which links the creation of the portal with the Wło-

stowic family – the founders of the abbeys on Ołbin and

Piasek

Island, as well as many churches in the region.

The portal would have constituted a setting for the intro-

duction of the saint’s relics to St Vincent’s church, given

to Peter Włostowic by Conrad III Hohenstauf in 1144

The tendency, visible in the discussion, to date the por-

tal earlier and earlier, although based on relative methods,

allows the assumption that the portal was created before

the end of the 12

century. A completely separate issue,

discussed later in this work, is the dating of individual el-

ements of the stonework mentioned starting from the dis-

mantling of the portal in 1529.

Iconography analysis

The oldest known presentation of the portal is related to

the panoramic plan of Wrocław made by Barthel Weiner

in 1562 [22]. It shows the abbey, which did not exist at

We are talking about the foundation tympanum of Maria Włosto-

wicowa from the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Piasek.

The relics were introduced into the church a year later.

body of studies, the vast majority of which were contra-

dictory. It is worth mentioning here the works of Zygmunt

Świechowski and Marian Morelowski containing con-

tradictory concepts [2], [16]. The dispute of researchers

concerning the stylistic genesis of the portal outlined two

later dominating views on the issue and inuenced the

whole literature dedicated to it until today. Świechowski

saw in the decoration of the portal mainly the inuence of

Italian sculpture, especially of the workshop of Benedet-

to Antelami – the author of the frieze of the cathedral in

Parma. Morelowski, on the other hand, derived the origin

of the portal’s decoration from the region of the Meuse

river. A brave reconstruction of the portal was included and

ex tensively explained in Wiesław Koziński’s work. The

re searcher’s conception was based on the analogy to the

portal from St. Jacob’s Church in Regensburg

. He sug-

gested that in 1546 the jambs were shortened in order to

adjust the scale of the portal to new conditions. According

to the researcher, the weld visible at about half the height

of the eastern jamb is a trace of the segment removed.

Moreover, based on the analysis of the stonework of the

western jamb, the researcher concluded that the chisels

used for its decoration were signicantly harder than those

used for the other decorations, therefore concluding that

this one is a few centuries younger copy. The researcher

found the reasons for such behavior of the 16

-century

builders in the damage to the original western jamb, or in

its being covered with decoration that made it impossible

to segment and shorten without clear traces. It is worth

noticing that the changes in height could have aected al-

most all elements of the portal’s anks, except for two ex-

ternal pairs of columns, which could be indicated by their

visible segmentation. We are talking here about both, the

jambs and the cannelled pilasters, as well as the corner re-

sponds of the faults. On the other hand, Koziński assessed

the base of the eastern jamb covered with a ame pattern,

together with the plinth, as original, but he sees them as

the original capitals and imposts turned by 180 degrees.

There is a striking dierence in style between the bases

of the jambs and their capitals. The capitals were made in

forms contemporary with the 16

century restorers of the

portal, clearly dierent from the Romanesque decoration

of the bases. The question remains, of course, about the

original purpose of the elements covered in ame relief

and the reason for a possible change in their function [1].

A separate issue raised by researchers was the conser-

vation of the portal. We are referring here to the works of

Barbara Penkalowa, Teresa Ciach and, in particular, Wie-

sław Domasłowski, whose study was the basis for con-

servation works conducted under his supervision in 1965

[10], [11], [17].

In recent years Rafał Quirini-Popławski (recalling

the dispute between Morelowski and Świechowski) and

Małgorzata Chorowska have written about the portal dec-

oration. Both works strongly criticize Świechowski’s as-

sumptions about the Lombard origins of the portal deco-

ration and its connections with Antelami’s workshop [18],

Which Buchwald [12] has previously written about.

6 Franciszek Hackemer

manner. It is not possible to discern the details or even the

general form of the portals.

The abbey was also depicted in a drawing from 1752

(after: [23]), which bears a strong similarity to Werner’s

work, possibly inspired by it or sharing with it a common,

unknown original. However, this representation is more

accurate in certain aspects, which is worth noting. Two

portals of the façade of the Church of the Blessed Virgin

Mary and St. Vincent are depicted. The southern portal is

larger than the northern one. Both are schematically depict-

ed as simple, semi-circularly crowned openings in the wall.

Very similar to the drawing from 1752 is the compo-

sition of the painting depicting the abbey, the original of

which dates from the 2

half of the 17

century (after:

[23]), so also probably based on some earlier representa-

tion. Similarly to the drawings described above, the west-

ern portals of the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary and

St. Vincent are depicted here in a simplied, even blotchy

manner.

A drawing by Heinrich Mützel from 1823 (Fig. 2) [15]

presents the portal frontally, with great precision. The au-

thor carefully portrayed the multitude of decorations, not

missing any details. There are visible 16

century inner

doorways topped with a triangular pediment with a shell

theme and an opening leading to the interior of the church,

preceded by a single step. The drawing does not show any

damage to the decoration of the portal, except for the seg-

mentation of the shafts of the inner columns. However,

two carved lions resting at the bases of the outer columns

are visible. The author put the date 1546 on the archivolt’s

external strip. The transom of the portal shows a grille

with a centrally placed ring.

Luchs’s drawings from 1855 are an inventory [9]. The

author presented the portal with great care and attention to

faithful representation of the details and the state of pres-

ervation of the object. The damage to the column bases

and the outer strip of the archivolt (on which the date 1546

does not appear) is visible. The drawing also shows the

sculpture of a lion – only one, located behind the outer

base of the east side. Two steps of the stairs are visible.

Adalbert Woel’s painting of 1867 [24] shows a view

of the church from the south-east. In the foreground, the

square in front of the church is visible, and to the left of

the painting – no longer existing tenement buildings of

the neighboring quarter. The surface of the square appears

to be unpaved, and three small trees are depicted on its

northern part, near the portal. The wall of the side nave

of the church is plastered in the painting above the line of

the stone plinth. The painting depicts the portal with quite

a high degree of accuracy. Even the decoration of the col-

umns and archivolts and the 16

century inner doorway

are recognizable. The destruction of the column bases and

the segmentation of the outer archivolt strip are also clear-

ly visible.

The oldest known photograph of the portal shows

its condition before conservation treatment in the years

1888–1890 (Fig. 3). The outer strip of the archivolt, at that

time not yet protected by tinsmiths, is heavily damaged.

The next, second belt bears traces of erosion, mainly in its

western part, where the decoration is no longer readable.

the time of the plan’s creation, together with the basilica

church of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Vincent, dom-

inating with its tower façade. Its western elevation also

shows two portals depicted in speckled detail, the southern

one being signicantly larger than the northern one. The

position of the portal within the church has not been es-

tablished. Many researchers have argued that it framed the

passage from the south wing of the cloister into the church

[2]. However, it is possible that it was the western portal.

Interestingly, Weiner’s plan either shows the original

location of the portal or draws it twice – in its current and

historical position. An opening was drawn in the wall of

the Church of Mary Magdalene in the place of the present

portal. The portal was depicted in a blurred way, only as

a general outline of its shape, without details. The wall of

the church, in which it was set, is plastered in this image.

The church was at that time surrounded by a wall, whose

gate led to today’s St. Mary Magdalene Street, which was

then a square.

The abbey, and with it perhaps the portal, is also shown

in a drawing by Friedrich B. Werner from the 1

half of the

century (after: [23]), which is one of a series of repre-

sentations based no doubt on an earlier, unknown original.

The Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Vin

cent is

visible on the left and is the largest building on the abbey

grounds. It is depicted as a basilica building with a single-

towered west elevation with at least two portals (part of the

façade is not visible). It is likely that the portal we know

from the wall of St. Mary Magdalene church was original-

ly one of these. Both have been depicted in a simplied

Fig. 2. Portal from Ołbin in the southern wall of the Church of

St. Mary Magdalene in Wrocław, as it appeared in 1823.

Drawing by Heinrich Mützel (source: [15])

Il. 2. Portal z Ołbina w południowej ścianie kościoła Marii Magdaleny

we Wrocławiu, stan z 1823 r.

Rycina Heinricha Mützela (źródło: [15])

SomeconcernsabouttheOłbin’sPortalfromSt.MaryMagdaleneChurchinWrocław 7

The other elements of the archivolt seem to be much bet-

ter preserved. In the zone of the capitals, the external pair

of columns with broken and eroded capitals and imposts

is striking. Its shafts bear traces of damage in the lower

part. The photograph shows the shafts and capitals of the

inner columns without any visible damage. The plinths

and bases of the columns, especially the external ones, are

the most eroded. The bases of the jambs, elevated above

the ground level at the highest, are visible in good con-

dition. The lion at the base of the west column is dam-

aged in the photograph, practically unrecognizable. The

stair steps (two) are heavily worn in the central part. The

portal opening in the photograph is still built up with 16

century forms. In the photograph the wall of the church

is partially plastered, largely eroded at the bottom. It is

noticeable that all the major damage to the portal concerns

its external elements, especially the upper and lower parts,

which are most exposed to the weather.

Another photograph from around 1930 (Fig. 4) shows

the portal shortly after the conservation treatments of the

late 19

century. What draws attention is the brighter col-

or of the impost cornice and the bases of the columns and

their signicantly better condition. The shafts of the inner

columns have not changed. The new outer strip of the ar-

chivolt and the entire lower part – the steps (four) and the

plinths – are also clearly dierentiated. The photograph

shows cylindrical pads placed between the shafts and bas-

es of the two outer columns of the east side. The church

wall is unplastered, with a new clinker brick face. Also

clearly visible is the exposed stonework of the fault, to the

right of the outer eastern column, after the removal of the

plaster. Perhaps the most signicant change visible in the

photograph is the removal of the 16

century inner door

and its replacement with a gateway with neo-Romanesque

timberwork.

A detailed inventory of the portal’s condition from the

1950s was published by Świechowski [23] and shows

precisely the decoration of the stonework elements along

with the damage. Thirty years later the author proposed

a reconstruction assuming the connection of the tympa-

num with the portal, currently in the National Museum in

Wrocław [2].

Comparing the described iconographic materials, one

may conclude that Mützel’s illustration, especially in the

face of comparison with not much later drawings from

Luchs’s study and the rst known photograph of the por-

tal, seems to be a certain idealization. The discrepancy re-

garding the number of steps is noteworthy – in Mützel’s

case it is one, while in Woel’s picture from 1867 it is

two. The condition of the steps before the conservator’s

intervention in 1888 indicates their heavy wear, rather than

being the result of only a few decades of use. The overall

state of preservation of the portal, especially its lower parts

(the bases), as well as the eastern part of the outer archi-

Fig. 3. First known photograph of the Ołbin portal,

built into the wall of the Church of St. Mary Magdalene in Wrocław.

Condition before restoration in the years 1888–1890 (source: [13, p. 109)

Il. 3. Pierwsza znana fotografia portalu ołbińskiego,

wmurowanego w ścianę kościoła św. Marii Magdaleny we Wrocławiu.

Stan sprzed konserwacji z lat 1888–1890 (źródło: [13, s. 109])

Fig. 4. A photograph of the Ołbin portal,

built into the wall of the Church of St. Mary Magdalene in Wrocław.

State from the beginning of the 20

century (source: [14, p. 33])

Il. 4. Fotografia portalu ołbińskiego,

wmurowanego w ścianę kościoła św. Marii Magdaleny we Wrocławiu.

Stan z początku XX w. (źródło: [14, s. 33])

8 Franciszek Hackemer

volt and the capitals of the column carrying it, is clearly

worse in the photographs from before the conservation in

1888 than in Mützel’s graphics. A detail of minor impor-

tance is a certain inconsistency in the scale of the tran-

som grille. This set of inconsistencies between Mützel’s

depiction and the photographs and Woel’s work allows

us to assume that the illustrator in some way rened the

image of the object. It is worth noting here the date of the

transfer carved centrally in the outer strip of the archivolt:

1546. Mützel’s graphic is perhaps the only iconographic

source on which the inscription is visible. The drawing

from Luchs’ work, although also exceptionally precise,

does not contain this detail. The text mentions another in-

scription from the archivolt: IORDANI

near the scene

of Christ’s Baptism, but there is no information about the

centrally placed date. On the photographs from before the

replacement of the whole archivolt the inscription also

remains invisible. This may be due to the heavy erosion

of the whole outer part of the archivolt, which is the sec-

tion most exposed to the weather. The damage may have

obliterated the inscription to such an extent that it was not

visible in the photographs. However, we have no certainty

that it actually existed. Also noteworthy is the inner pair

of columns with smooth shafts. Mützel’s drawing shows

them clearly segmented, whereas all other 19

century de-

pictions show them as monolithic. It is possible that they

were replaced between 1823 and 1888, although it seems

more likely that this is the result of a discrepancy between

the artistic representation of the portal and its actual state.

What is unquestionable is the presence of stone lions at the

outer bases of the columns before the end of the 19

cen-

tury, conrmed by all the iconography of the period.

Iconographic agenda

Equally mysterious as the history of the portal is its

iconographic agenda, the leading motif of which was ini-

tially described by Świechowski as […] whatAdamand

Evewereguiltyof whentheyreached fortheforbidden

fruit,theSaviour erasedwith Hislife anddeath onthe

cross [25, p. 55]. The analysis of the decoration, however,

may reveal even a wider scale in depicting the biblical

scenes of the portal’s creators. The description of the ele-

ments bearing the decoration (excluding geometrical and

oral decoration) will be presented here in order from the

lower to the upper parts of the portal.

The western jamb is a mirror reection of the eastern

one, which may indicate its later, 16

century metric, as

claimed by Koziński [1]. Three medallions surrounded by

a ribbon thread on both represent in turn (from the top):

oral decoration, a bearded man with hands reaching

down towards the lower medallion, and Adam and Eve.

Above the head of the bearded man, on which rests the

characteristic veil or mitre

, two birds of prey meet with

their beaks. Similarly, above the heads of Adam and Eve,

In Luchs’s work as “ICRUANI” [9].

In the eastern jamb the gure is deprived of this headgear. This

change, however, is due to a slit in the carving which runs through this

place.

two sh (?) are sculpted in a similar position. The man

in the middle part was interpreted by Burgemeister and

Grundmann, as well as Quirini-Popławski as God the Fa-

ther [18], [26]. The recognition of the rst parents in the

two gures of the lower segment is clear. It would be dif-

cult to assume that another pair of naked people could

nd their place here [2]. This set of representations (veg-

etation, fowl, sh, rst parents and God the Father) may

point to the biblical cycle of creation as the primary theme

of the jamb decoration. On this assumption, the events of

the third, fth and sixth days of creation are visible on the

eastern side. The western carving is probably a 16

-cen-

tury replacement for a prototype destroyed or lost during

the demolition of the abbey. As such, it was forged in the

form of a mirror image of its eastern counterpart, known

to those of that time. Originally the western carving may

have been decorated with a decoration depicting the rst

days of creation, also included in medallions and complet-

ing the chronology of the whole representation.

Signicant in the context of considering the decoration

of the jambs is the seam dividing the eastern jamb into two

parts, running at the height of the headdress of God the

Father. Koziński drew attention to the “sculptural incon-

sistency” visible on both sides of the cut line, which may

suggest that the carving was shortened in order to lower

the portal and adapt it to the conditions of the new site [1].

The composed medallion actually varies in width on the

two sides of the joint, which is visible to the naked eye in

the alignment of the western part of the ribbon thread. On

this basis it can be assumed that these are in fact fragments

of two medallions, which would testify to the original seg-

mentation of the decoration of the eastern (and probably

also the western) jamb into four parts. Eight medallions

would allow the representation of the six days of creation

and the presence of God the Father in the decoration on

both sides of the portal.

When analyzing the iconographic program of the jambs,

it is worth noting the characteristic theme of the “mouths

of hell” – two human masks, from whose mouths a rib-

bon thread ows, encircling the following segments of the

decoration, placed above the base and below the capitol.

An almost identical form can be seen in the right jamb of

the portal in Kilpeck, dated between 1135 and 1140, as

pointed out by Chorowska [18]. It is worth noting here

that this motif occurs, although in a visually dierent

form, in one of the capitals of the portal from Czerwińsk

dated to around 1140 [18].

The area of the capitals is probably the most decorative

part of the portal. The capitals of the outer columns were

probably symmetrical, but this cannot be determined with

certainty, as the eastern head was heavily damaged in its

front and western part. For this reason only the western

capitol will be described here. On its western side there is

a depiction of a four-legged creature devouring a leaf (?)

[25], the mirror image of which is also on the front face

of the capital, so that the two meet head-on at its corner.

Further on, the eastern corner, which is the most exposed,

depicts a scene of original sin – Adam and Eve facing each

other but separated by a tree of the knowledge of good

and evil entwined by a serpent. On the east wall of the

SomeconcernsabouttheOłbin’sPortalfromSt.MaryMagdaleneChurchinWrocław 9

head a scene dicult to interpretation – two gures fac-

ing north. The rst of these (left) is a winged angel, the

second remains unrecognized, due to its incompleteness,

resulting from 16

century trimming of the capitol at this

point. However, it wears a long robe and a circular nimbus

around its head (like the angel), which precludes interpret-

ing it as either of the rst parents. Between the gures two

plant branches spreading out on either side are depicted.

Both capitals of the outer columns have been stripped of

some of their decoration as a result of being forged to ac-

commodate the new location in the 16

century.

The capitals of the second and third columns of the

west ern side bear exceptionally rich and plastic decoration

with zoomorphic motives. In the central capital there are

possibly silhouettes of eagles – the symbols of the Evan-

gelist John and a lion – Mark. These representations are

not fully preserved and are devoid of heads. The capitol of

the inner column is decorated on the left with a well-pre-

served gure of an ox (Evangelist Luke) and on the right

with a gure of a man in a mitre (Matthew?). It should

be noted, however, that Świechowski interpreted these

representations dierently – as zoomorphic decoration

devoid of the symbolism of the four Evangelists. In the

gure of a man in a mitre he saw “a bishop of the sea”

[25]. The level of complexity of the decoration and en-

tanglement of these gures in plant threads undoubted-

ly causes problems with their correct identication and

many ambiguities.

Signicantly, the second and third (from the outside)

capitals of the eastern side are decorated much poorer,

both in terms of the momentum of the iconography and

the artistic quality of the sculpture. The central head is

covered only by simple and relatively low-density plant

threads. The capitol of the inner column bears a similar

decoration, enriched in the corner with a human face of

simplied drawing. It is possible that during the 16

cen-

tury reconstruction of the portal a mistake was made in

the arrangement of the heads on the columns. It is possible

that originally one pair of capitals was exchanged, so that

in each of the sides there was one with the representation

of the evangelists and one with plant decoration. It is also

worth noting the much lower artistic level of the decora-

tion of the heads on the eastern side. This may suggest that

in the original layout of the portal they were not there at

all. They may have appeared there only in 1546, during

the reconstruction of the portal, replacing the lost or de-

stroyed capitals with richer decoration, corresponding to

the one we know from the western side.

The story of Christ’s life is in fact, clearly and without

any doubt as to the interpretation of the whole, recorded

in the second centrifugal strip of the archivolt (chronolog-

ically from left to right: the Annunciation of Mary, Joseph

and the Midwife of Bethlehem, the Birth, the Adoration

of the Three Kings, Joseph’s Dream, the Child’s Bath, the

Circumcision (?), the Presentation in the Temple, the Bap-

tism in the Jordan). Two of these scenes are apocryphal:

Joseph and the Midwife of Bethlehem (Pseudo-Matthew

Gospel), which is usually interpreted as the Annunciation

to the Shepherds [25], and the Baby Bath. The most in-

teresting segment, however, is a piece about 40 cm long

between the Child’s Bath and the Presentation in the Tem-

ple, bearing cut marks on both sides and depicting two

gures facing each with their backs. The interpretation of

this fragment as a scene of the Circumcision can be found

in the literature, but it is quite probable that it is in fact the

remains of two adjacent scenes originally located in this

place, which would explain both the unusual positioning

of the gures in relation to each other and the dilution of

the decoration noticeable in the western part of the archi-

volt strip. Perhaps the archivolt was lowered during the

works adapting the portal to its new location

The change in the archivolt’s shape may have also

necessitated the removal of the Romanesque tympanum

(now in the National Museum in Wrocław), commonly

associated with the portal today. Its decoration depicting

the Deposition of the Cross on the obverse and the Dormi-

tion of Mary on the reverse would probably complete the

entire iconographic agenda of the portal. Precise compar-

ison of the arches of both elements and their dimensions

should be the next step in research on the portal.

Attempt to date elements of the portal

The starting point of the attempt presented by the au-

thor to date the elements of the portal was its invento-

ry made in 2021–2022 by digital photogrammetry. This

method has been described in many papers on the invento-

ry of historical objects, including articles from 2018 pre-

senting the process of creating photogrammetric models

[27], [28].

For this purpose, 950 photographs were taken with

a DJI Mavic Air 2 drone, the use of which allowed easy

capture of the portal also from above. The set of photo-

graphs was then analyzed in the Reality Capture software

of the Capturing Reality studio. Characteristic points and

their repetition in subsequent photographs were deter-

mined (by the program’s algorithm), after which the algo-

rithm calculated the position of the drone’s camera at the

time each of the photographs was taken. On the basis of

the information obtained in these two stages, the program

created a dense cloud of points faithfully representing

the geometry of the portal and transformed it into a mesh

model. Generating a texture from the photographs used

was the nal step in creating the 3D model. The nal mod-

el was composed of 32 million triangles, which speaks for

its high accuracy – all details of the portal, including the

texture of the stone, were documented. The processing of

the model, which consisted of removing surrounding ele-

ments that were unnecessary in the context of this work,

scaling and establishing views, was carried out in Cloud-

Compare. The model was then used to generate a view of

the portal, as well as a projection and cross-sections in or-

thogonal projection (Fig. 5), which served as the basis for

the measurements and illustrations included in the study.

Koziński’s thesis that the western jamb was chiseled in

1546, in order to ll the gap left by a lost or damaged orig-

The author would like to thank Rev. Prof. Janusz Nowiński for his

multiple consultations during the writing of this article.

10 Franciszek Hackemer

churches in Thalburgel and Paulinzella (both Benedic-

tine)

. Koziński also suggested a correspondence between

the dimensions of the base of the jambs and the zone of

the capitals of the columns, which raises some doubts.

The height of the capitals of the columns of the eastern

side, together with the imposts, oscillates between 47 and

49 cm. The height of the ame base together with the im-

post is about 36 cm. Only after adding to this height the

dimension of the slab – located today below, but once per-

haps above the impost – can we obtain a result of about

47 cm. However, such a correspondence is dicult to ac-

cept, as the compared sets of elements are not compatible

with each other. This raises the following question: if the

ame-shaped base together with the impost and the slab

once constituted the capitals of the jambs, why is the cap-

ital almost half as high as the others? This observation

raises some doubts. However, it should be noted that the

height of the set of the impost, ame base and hypotheti-

cal four-medallion jamb shaft is 312.7 cm, which is only

less than 2 cm less than the height of the adjacent column

including the capital and impost. This correspondence

may suggest that the jambs originally had bases of similar

height to those we know from 19

-century copies and set

at the same level. The conformity of the heights of the

imposts has been conrmed. Their heights are approxi-

mately 18–19 cm. The eastern base is on the side of the

accompanying column clearly scued to t the new loca-

tion. The lack of traces of such actions in the western jamb

may speak in favor of Koziński’s thesis on the secondary

nature of the western jamb. What is clear, however, is the

century origin of the capitals of both jambs, whose

form is completely dierent from the other elements of

the portal.

The author would like to thank Roland Mruczek PhD for his con-

sultation on portal transformations and style analogies.

inal, seems plausible, although its conrmation would re-

quire physical and chemical testing of the stone. Howev-

er, there is no doubt that the eastern carving bears a clear

trace of segmentation in the form of a cut line visible in

the central medallion. It is signicant that the gure of

the bearded man depicted here was, as a result of this cut,

deprived of the headgear known to us from the western

carving. So it is in fact almost certain that some changes

to the height of the jambs were made when the portal was

set into the wall of the Church of St. Mary Magdalene.

Recognizing the scale of these changes is crucial to giv-

ing credibility to earlier considerations about the icono-

graphic program of the jambs. To this end, suitable mea-

surements were made based on a photogrammetric model

of the portal. The height of the entire eastern jamb in its

present form, counting from the junction with the amed

base at the bottom to the 16

century capital at the top, is

approximately 212.5 cm (Fig. 6). The heights of the cen-

tral medallions, which are the only ones presented fully

and not fading into the maw of hell, are: 62.5 cm (eastern

jamb) and 62.2 cm (western jamb). Assuming the original

existence of four medallions on each side, the total height

of the shaft can be set at about 276 cm, counting without

bases and capitals. This dimension is subject to a margin

of error of a few centimeters.

The bases of the jambs bear a ame decoration, the

direction of which may indicate their secondary 180-de-

gree turn, which Koziński pointed out, seeing in them the

original capitals. The imposts below them form a whole

with the bases, chiseled from a single fragment of stone.

Signicantly, however, the whole also includes the 11.6 cm

high cuboidal slab under the impost. The assumption that

this ame-decorated base once constituted the capital of

a jamb, therefore, also enforces the assumption that above

the impost cornice there were cuboid abacuses in the por-

tal, of which this slab is a relic. For such a form it is possi-

ble to nd analogies such as the portals from the monastery

Fig. 5. Photogrammetric inventory

of the Ołbin portal from

the southern wall of St. Mary

Magdalene Church in Wrocław.

Present state:

1 – cross-section A-A, western part,

2 – portal view from the south,

orthogonal projection,

3 – cross-section B-B, eastern part

(elaborated by F. Hackemer)

Il. 5. Inwentaryzacja

fotogrametryczna portalu

ołbińskiego z południowej ściany

kościoła pw. św. Marii Magdaleny

we Wrocławiu. Stan obecny:

1 – przekrój A-A, ościeże zachodnie,

2 – widok portalu od południa,

w rzucie ortogonalnym,

3 – przekrój B-B, ościeże

wschodnie

(oprac. F. Hackemer)

SomeconcernsabouttheOłbin’sPortalfromSt.MaryMagdaleneChurchinWrocław 11

The impost cornice crowning the zone of capitals in its

present form obviously dates from the end of the 19

cen-

tury, which is clear from the analysis of the iconography.

The question arises whether its predecessor visible on the

oldest photograph of the portal (Fig. 3) was a 16

cen-

tury addition. According to Koziński [1], the only pre-

served impost of the 12

century is the one located under

the ame-decorated base of the eastern jamb. This the-

sis is very plausible, not only in light of the analysis of

the destruction of both jamb bases presented above, but

also thanks to the observation of the jambs. The corners

between outer and second pair of columns of the portal

are decorated with columns with capitals with rosettes.

Behind the external columns can be seen cannelled pilas-

ters set in the face of the wall. These two elements form

a whole – the column was chiseled in the corner of the

pilaster. It is dicult to imagine that the creators of the

portal in its original form deliberately made the decora-

tive channeling of these fragments of stonework and then

covered them up by attaching a column directly to the

pilaster. It is therefore clear that the outer column must

have been oset in some direction and the projection of

the doorways dierent than today. As the impost cornice

follows the positioning of the capitals of the columns, it is

almost certain that it was carved in the 16

century for the

reconstruction of the portal.

The dating of the outer archivolt strip, which in its

present form dates from the late 19

century (it was re-

placed due to extensive damage during conservation work

around 1890), is undetermined. It is likely that in the form

Fig. 6. Portal from the southern wall of the Church of St. Mary Magdalene in Wrocław, present state.

Eastern jamb, comparison of the heights of individual elements: 1 – photogrammetric model of the portal, eastern side,

2 – eastern jamb without the 16

century capital, 3 – eastern jamb enlarged by the size of one medallion

(red box indicates hypothetical location of the missing element) (elaborated by F. Hackemer)

Il. 6. Portal ołbiński z południowej ściany kościoła pw. św. Marii Magdaleny we Wrocławiu, stan obecny.

Węgar wschodni, porównanie wysokości poszczególnych elementów: 1 – model fotogrametryczny portalu, ościeże wschodnie,

2 – węgar wschodni bez XVI-wiecznego zwieńczenia, 3 – węgar wschodni powiększony o wymiar jednego medalionu

(czerwoną ramką oznaczono hipotetyczną lokalizację brakującego elementu) (oprac. F. Hackemer)

12 Franciszek Hackemer

known to us from the iconography and the existing copy it

appeared only in the 16

century during the adaptation of

the portal to a new function.

The origin of the cylindrical pads placed between the

shafts and bases of the outer columns of the east side of

a portal is interesting. They were undoubtedly placed here

only at the end of the 19

century, and the similarity of the

sandstone from which they were made to that of the col-

umn shaft (undoubtedly the original) suggests that these

pads may also date from the 12

century. The complete

dissimilarity of the stone used for the column bases and

the impost cornice seems to conrm this. They may have

been made in the 19

century from any of the removed,

eroded elements of 12

century stonework, e.g. from the

bases of these columns (Fig. 7).

The rebuilding of the portal in 1546 was undoubtedly

done in a way that lost its original form and prevented

its full reconstruction. Many changes, such as alteration

of the height of the door frames, change of the plan and

positioning of columns, probable change of the arch of

archivolt shape, removal of tympanum, replacement of

imposts, introduction of new plinths and change of the

height of the bases, replacement of the western jamb with

a copy or change of the arrangement of capitals of the two

inner pairs of columns make it dicult today to identify

the 12

century shape of the portal.

The conservation work of 1888–1890 mainly involved

the replacement of many damaged elements with copies,

including the bases of three pairs of columns, their bases

and stair steps, the outer archivolt and the impost cornice.

Cylindrical stone pads, slightly but noticeably larger in

diameter than the diameter of the shaft, were placed be-

tween the shaft and the bases of the two outer columns

of the eastern side. This procedure is clear when compar-

ing two photographs of the portal, before and after con-

servation (Figs. 3, 4). The remains of the lion sculptures

were removed, however it was not decided to place the

copies, perhaps due to too poor recognition of their origi-

nal shape. The archivolt was covered with a strip of sheet

metal to protect it from rainfall. A small respond in the

fault between columns 1 and 2 (from the outside) in the

western ank of the portal was lled in to hide its segmen-

tation. A similar treatment was applied to other elements

of the portal (the archivolt stripes, the connection of the

column shafts with stone pads). Finally, a new purist Neo-

Romanesque door woodwork was introduced in place of

the 16

cen tury addition.

After two such strong sets of transformations of the

object, the following can be regarded as 12

-century ele-

ments: four centrifugal strips of archivolts, capitals of three

pairs of external columns, shafts of two pairs of external

columns, the eastern jamb with a ame-decorated base

and impost and abacus(?) below it, stonework of the anks

– cannelled pilasters (with columns in corners). The ele-

Fig. 7. The Ołbin portal from the southern wall of St. Mary Magdalene

Church in Wrocław. A fragment of photogrammetric inventory.

Detail of the lower parts of the external columns of the eastern side.

Cylindrical pads between the shafts and bases of the columns

are visible (elaborated by F. Hackemer)

Il. 7. Portal ołbiński z południowej ściany kościoła

pw. św. Marii Magdaleny we Wrocławiu.

Fragment inwentaryzacji fotogrametrycznej.

Detal dolnych partii kolumn zewnętrznych ościeża wschodniego.

Widoczne cylindryczne podkładki między trzonami i bazami kolumn

(oprac. F. Hackemer)

Fig. 8. Proposal for chronological dating of the elements

of the Ołbin portal from the southern wall of St. Mary Magdalene

Church in Wrocław: 1 – 12

century, original elements,

2 – 1529–1546, 3 – 1888–1890

(elaborated by F. Hackemer)

Il. 8. Propozycja datowania elementów portalu ołbińskiego

z południowej ściany kościoła pw. św. Marii Magdaleny we Wrocławiu:

1 – XII w., elementy pierwotne, 2 – 1529–1546, 3 – 1888–1890

(oprac. F. Hackemer)

SomeconcernsabouttheOłbin’sPortalfromSt.MaryMagdaleneChurchinWrocław 13

ments from the 16

century are probably the western

jamb, the capitals of both jambs, smooth shafts of internal

columns. Other elements of the portal are probably results

of the conservator’s interference from the end of the 19

century, or their dating has not been established (Fig. 8).

Summary

The analyses described above have made it possible to

pose questions which will form the basis for further archi-

tectural research aimed at clarifying certain issues related

to the origin and transformation of the Ołbin portal.

The starting point for the analyses were the measure-

ments and studies of the decoration of the eastern door-

way, with particular emphasis on the jamb. They allowed

supporting Koziński’s thesis about the lowering of the

portal during the rebuilding of 1546. As a result of these

investigations and visual inspections it was also possible

to nd clues suggesting the original existence of abacuses

above the impost cornice of the portal. Hypotheses con-

cerning changes in the height of the archivolt need to be

conrmed by further research, e.g. on a tympanum from

the National Museum in Wrocław and two strips of the

archivolt from Ołbin from the Museum of Architecture in

Wrocław. There is no doubt that the 19

-century detail

worth attention are two pads under the shafts of the col-

umns of the eastern side, possibly chiseled from the relics

of the 20

-century bases.

The recognition of secondary elements and the precise

establishment of the history of transformations is a step

towards the knowledge of the original form of the por-

tal. Therefore, it seems also necessary to study the present

condition of the portal, after a series of 20

-century resto-

ration works, which seriously and unfortunately aected

its condition. It is impossible to reconstruct the decora-

tion from, for example, the cut capitals of the external

columns, which makes it impossible to fully identify the

iconographic agenda of the portal.

The analyses carried out conrmed the view that the

Ołbin portal is an outstanding work of architecture of

the region and at the same time it is still not fully recog-

nized. Many elements of this unique work and its history

remain shrouded in mystery. The recognition of second-

ary elements and the precise establishment of the history

of transformations is a step towards the knowledge of its

original form. Therefore, it seems fully justied to contin-

ue the research on the portal planned by the author.

Translatedby

FranciszekHackemer

References

[1] Koziński W., Uwagi o portalu ołbińskim, “Ochrona Zabytków”

1958, t. 11, nr 3–4(42–43), 177–191.

[2]

Świechowski Z., Dwierestauracje romańskiegoportalu zopactwa

św.WincentegonaOłbinieweWrocławiuijegoaktualnaproblematy-

kakonserwatorska, “Ochrona Zabytków” 1970, t. 23, nr 1(88), 3–10.

[3] Małachowicz E., StareMiastoweWrocławiu.Zniszczenie,odbudo-

wa,program, PWN, Warszawa–Wrocław 1976.

[4] CodexDiplomaticusSilesiae, Bd. 7, RegestenzurschlesischenGe

schichte.ErsterTheil.BiszumJahre1250, C. Grünhagen (Hrsg.),

Josef Max & Comp., Breslau 1884.

[5] DieJahrbüchervonMagdeburg(ChronographusSaxo). Nach der

AusgabederMonumentaGermaniaeübersetztvonEduardWinkel-

mann, G.H. Pertz, J. Grimm (Hrsg.), Franz Duncker, Berlin 1863.

[6] KodeksdyplomatycznyŚląska:zbiórdokumentówilistówdotyczą-

cychŚląska, t. 1:Obejmującylata971–1204, K. Maleczyński (red.),

Wrocławskie Towarzystwo Miłośników Historii, Wrocław 1956.

[7] Semrau M., ZudenRestenderVinzenzklosterbeiBreslau, “Schle-

siens Vorzeit in Bild und Schrift” 1902, Bd. 2, 70–73.

[8] Morelowski M., Studianadarchitekturąirzeźbąnawrocławskim

Ołbinie XII wieku, “Sprawozdania Wrocławskiego Towarzystwa

Naukowego. Seria A” 1952, t. 7.

[9] Luchs H., UebereinigemittelalterlicheKunstdenkmälervonBre-

slau, Ferdinand Hirt’s Königl. Universitäts-Buchhandlung, Breslau

1855.

[10] Frey D., Die Kunst im Mittelalter, [in:] L. Petry, J.J. Menzel,

H. Au bin, W. Irgang (Hrsg.), GeschichteSchlesiens:VonderUrzeit

biszumJahre1526, Jan Thorbecke, Sigmaringen 1988, 426–463.

[11] Ciach T., Penkalowa B., Zagadnienie konserwacji romańskiego

portalu kościoła św. Marii Magdaleny we Wrocławiu, “Ochrona

Zabytków” 1965, t. 18, nr 3(70), 22–28.

[12] Buchwald C., Reste des Vinzenz Kloster bei Breslau, “Schlesiens

VorzeitinBildundSchrift:ZeitschriftdesVereinsfürdasMuseum

schlesischerAltertümer. Jahrbuch desschlesischenMuseumsfür

KunstgewerbeundAltertümer”, Bd. 1, Druck von Grass, Barth &

Comp. (W. Friedriech), Breslau 1900, 61–79.

[13] Götz H., Hadelt A., Breslauer Kirchen, Ostdeutsche Verlagsanstalt,

Breslau 1926.

[14] Gurlitt C., Breslau, “Historische Städtebilder” S. 2, H. 3, Bd. 8,

Ernst Wasmuth, Berlin 1906, https://www.dbc.wroc.pl/dlibra/pub-

lication/18116/edition/16199/content

[15] Stein R., DasAlteBreslau.Eine gotischeGroßstadt, Flemmings

Verlag, Breslau-Deutsch Lissa, Breslau 1936.

[16] Morelowski M., Architekturairzeźbaarchitektoniczna, [in:] T. Bro-

niewski, M. Zlat (red.), SztukaWrocławia, Zakład Narodowy im.

Ossolińskich, Wrocław 1967, 38–50.

[17] Domasłowski W., Zagadnienieusunięcianawarstwieńzpowierzch-

nikamiennegoportaluzOłbina, “Ochrona Zabytków” 1965, t. 18,

nr 3(70), 29–34.

[18] Quirini-Popławski R., RzeźbaprzedromańskairomańskawPolsce

wobecsztukiwłoskiej, Wydawnictwo UJ, Kraków 2006.

[19] Chorowska M., IkonograaidatowanieZdjęcia z krzyżanatympa

nonieromańskiegoportaluzOłbina, [in:] A. Gryglewska, J.L. Do-

besz, M. Rudnicka-Bogusz (red.), Nietylkotrony:księgajubileu

szowa oarowana Profesorowi Ernestowi Niemczykowi, Ocyna

Wydawnicza PWr, Wrocław 2012, 115–124.

[20] Fąfara A., Wybrane problemy badawcze związane z romańskim

portalemzkościołaśw.WincentegonaOłbinie,obecniewkościele

św.MariiMagdalenyweWrocławiu.Przeglądliteratury, [in:] B. Cze -

chowicz (red.), Śródmiejskakatedra.Kościółśw.MariiMagdaleny

wdziejachikulturzeWrocławia, Ocyna Wydawnicza Atut – Wro-

cławskie Wydawnictwo Oświatowe, Wrocław 2010, 371–394.

[21] Gębarowicz M., ZabytkisztukiromańskiejnaŚląsku, “Sprawozda-

nia Towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie” 1929, R. 9, 102–105.

[22] Weiner B., ContrafacturderStadtBreslau, Grass, Barth & Comp.

W. Friedrich, Breslau 1929 [photolithographic reproduction of an

original from 1562].

[23] Świechowski Z., ArchitekturanaŚląskudopołowyXIIIwieku, Mi-

nisterstwo Kultury i Sztuki, Warszawa 1955.

[24] Woel A., St.MagdalenenkircheBreslau1867, https://commons.

wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AlbertWoel.jpg [accessed: 10.02.2022].

14 Franciszek Hackemer

Abstract

Some concerns about the Ołbin’s Portal from St. Mary Magdalene Church in Wrocław

The article outlines the key research problems concerning the so-called Ołbiński Portal from the Church of St. Mary Magdalene in Wrocław,

originally from the Abbey in Ołbin. The portal is undoubtedly one of the most important works of Romanesque architectural sculpture in this part

of Europe. Its original form, however, remains unknown – the present one is the result of the 16

century process of embedding the portal in a new

place, after the suppression and demolition of the abbey. For inventory purposes, the author created a photogrammetric 3D model of the portal, which

is also the basis for later considerations. The work contains the author’s analysis of the iconography and the present state of the portal, together with

conclusions concerning the dating of its individual elements. On this basis, an illustration of the overall stratication of the consecutive construction

phases of the portal was created. An attempt is also made to better understand the iconographic program of the work and to draw attention to unnoticed

problems of interpretation, resulting mainly from the damage of the portal suered as a result of being adapted in order to be built into the wall of the

Church of St. Mary Magdalene in 1546. The work draws attention to a number of research problems which have not been solved so far.

Key words: Wrocław, Ołbin, St. Mary Magdalene Church, portal, photogrammetry

Streszczenie

Kilka uwag na temat tzw. portalu ołbińskiego z kościoła św. Marii Magdaleny we Wrocławiu

Artykuł stanowi opis kluczowych problemów badawczych dotyczących tzw. portalu ołbińskiego z kościoła pw. św. Marii Magdaleny we

Wrocławiu, pierwotnie pochodzącego z opactwa na Ołbinie. Portal jest bez wątpienia jednym z najważniejszych dzieł romańskiej rzeźby architek-

tonicznej w tej części Europy. Jego pierwotna forma pozostaje jednak nieznana – obecna stanowi wynik XVI-wiecznego zabiegu osadzenia portalu

w nowym miejscu, po kasacie i zburzeniu opactwa. Do celów inwentaryzacyjnych autor stworzył fotogrametryczny model 3D portalu, stanowiący

również podstawę późniejszych rozważań. Praca zawiera przeprowadzoną przez autora analizę ikonograi oraz obecnego stanu portalu, wraz z płyną-

cymi z nich wnioskami dotyczącymi datowania jego poszczególnych elementów. Na tej podstawie powstała ilustracja całościowego rozwarstwienia

kolejnych faz budowlanych portalu. Podjęta została również próba lepszego zrozumienia programu ikonogracznego dzieła oraz zwrócenia uwagi

na niepomijalne problemy interpretacyjne, wynikające przede wszystkim ze zniszczeń, jakich portal doznał w wyniku dostosowywania go do wmu-

rowania w ścianę kościoła Marii Magdaleny w 1546 r. Praca zwraca uwagę na wiele nierozwiązanych do tej pory problemów badawczych, takich

jak identykacja postaci rzeźbionych w węgarach czy pierwotna forma kapiteli zewnętrznych kolumn, oraz na pewne przyjęte w dotychczasowej

literaturze przedmiotu przeoczenia dotyczące głównie efektów XIX-wiecznych zabiegów konserwatorskich.

Słowa kluczowe: Wrocław, Ołbin, kościół św. Marii Magdaleny, portal, fotogrametria

[25] Świechowski Z., Sztuka romańska w Polsce, Arkady, Warszawa

1982.

[26]

Burgemeister L., Grundmann G., DieKunstdenkmälerderStadtBre-

slau.ZweiterTeil;StadtBreslau;DieKunstdenkmälerderStadtBre-

slau, [DiekirchlichenDenkmälerderAltstadt],KirchlichenDenk

mälerderAltstadt, Wilhelm Gottlieb Korn Verlag, Breslau 1934.

[27] Karnicki R., Przestrzenneodwzorowaniafotogrametrycznewba-

daniacharchitektonicznych, [in:] E. Łużyniecka (red.), Dziedzic-

twoarchitektoniczne.Badaniapodstawoweiichdokumentowanie,

Ocyna Wydawnicza PWr, Wrocław 2018, 107–118, doi: 10.5277/

DZAR_B_2018.

[28] Szymański P., Wojciechowska G., Zając M., Tworzenie chmur

punktówobiektówarchitektonicznychmetodamifotogrametriina-

ziemnej, [in:] E. Łużyniecka (red.), Dziedzictwoarchitektoniczne.

Badaniapodstawoweiichdokumentowanie, Ocyna Wydawnicza

PWr, Wrocław 2018, 119–135, doi: 10.5277/DZAR_B_2018.